„QuILT-IK045-Diary” változatai közötti eltérés
A Miau Wiki wikiből
(→Task Nr.1 (T1a-b-c-d)) |
|||
| 1. sor: | 1. sor: | ||
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content | QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content | ||
=1. Day (2019.02.13.)= | =1. Day (2019.02.13.)= | ||
| − | ==Task Nr.1 ( | + | ==Obligatory Task Nr.1 (OT1a-b-c-d)== |
Solutions should always be sent to the prepared forum in the Moodle system or in case of system error - each solution should be written down on a sheet of paper - as far as possible with block capitals (uppercase): | Solutions should always be sent to the prepared forum in the Moodle system or in case of system error - each solution should be written down on a sheet of paper - as far as possible with block capitals (uppercase): | ||
| − | * | + | *OT1a: Please, create a definition (being valid especially for you) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"! |
| − | * | + | *OT1b: Please, create an other definition too (being valid in general or especially for somebody else in the team) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"! |
| − | Remarks: The expected definitions should be appropriate complex/long. Please, do not use any sources neither for the general definition nor for your personal definition! The probability (that all member in the team will create the same definition about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE") is never high. Therefore, the second task-layer about the general definition targets either a definition which could really be created by an other team-member or a definition created/creating by the so called "average people". Example: Please define the word "WATER"! Expert-definition = H2O / General definition (like definitions in Wikipedia) = "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance..." | + | Remarks for supporting operative interpretations: The expected definitions should be appropriate complex/long. Please, do not use any sources neither for the general definition nor for your personal definition! The probability (that all member in the team will create the same definition about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE") is never high. Therefore, the second task-layer about the general definition targets either a definition which could really be created by an other team-member or a definition created/creating by the so called "average people". Example: Please define the word "WATER"! Expert-definition = H2O / General definition (like definitions in Wikipedia) = "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance..." |
| − | * | + | *OT1c: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of definitions (see above)! |
| − | * | + | *OT1d: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of rule sets (evaluating definitions)! |
| − | *[ | + | *[FT0*: (unlimited task list: ...evaluation rule sets can always be expected to each creation level...:-) ] |
| − | Remarks: Without being capable of defining the term of the "Ideal/Good/Best/Target" and also the distance of solutions compared to these benchmarks or without being capable of deriving what objects are better than other ones, nobody can speak about rational planning/thinking/doing... | + | Remarks for supporting operative interpretations: Without being capable of defining the term of the "Ideal/Good/Best/Target" and also the distance of solutions compared to these benchmarks or without being capable of deriving what objects are better than other ones, nobody can speak about rational planning/thinking/doing... |
| + | |||
| + | Remarks about didactic aspects: Without being capable of measuring the starting positions of Students, we can never speak about "learning/teaching" success - therefore in case of each task, the basic statements of each Student are always necessary to collect. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Facultative Task (FT_*)= | ||
| + | The following tasks need probably more time than available. But they could also be seen as relevant extensions in order to have a complex system of points of views supporting divergent learning/teaching/problem-solving strategies: | ||
| + | *Each definition (see OT1a, OT1b) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students before OT1c and OT1d will be published at all... | ||
| + | * | ||
| + | |||
| + | Remarks: | ||
A lap 2019. február 8., 11:13-kori változata
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content
1. Day (2019.02.13.)
Obligatory Task Nr.1 (OT1a-b-c-d)
Solutions should always be sent to the prepared forum in the Moodle system or in case of system error - each solution should be written down on a sheet of paper - as far as possible with block capitals (uppercase):
- OT1a: Please, create a definition (being valid especially for you) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
- OT1b: Please, create an other definition too (being valid in general or especially for somebody else in the team) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations: The expected definitions should be appropriate complex/long. Please, do not use any sources neither for the general definition nor for your personal definition! The probability (that all member in the team will create the same definition about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE") is never high. Therefore, the second task-layer about the general definition targets either a definition which could really be created by an other team-member or a definition created/creating by the so called "average people". Example: Please define the word "WATER"! Expert-definition = H2O / General definition (like definitions in Wikipedia) = "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance..."
- OT1c: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of definitions (see above)!
- OT1d: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of rule sets (evaluating definitions)!
- [FT0*: (unlimited task list: ...evaluation rule sets can always be expected to each creation level...:-) ]
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations: Without being capable of defining the term of the "Ideal/Good/Best/Target" and also the distance of solutions compared to these benchmarks or without being capable of deriving what objects are better than other ones, nobody can speak about rational planning/thinking/doing...
Remarks about didactic aspects: Without being capable of measuring the starting positions of Students, we can never speak about "learning/teaching" success - therefore in case of each task, the basic statements of each Student are always necessary to collect.
Facultative Task (FT_*)
The following tasks need probably more time than available. But they could also be seen as relevant extensions in order to have a complex system of points of views supporting divergent learning/teaching/problem-solving strategies:
- Each definition (see OT1a, OT1b) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students before OT1c and OT1d will be published at all...
Remarks:
